Skip to content

Tracking: the open backlog #127

Description

@al8n

Umbrella for the whole open backlog. Every item below has its own issue with the mechanism, the evidence, file references, and — where it was deliberately deferred — the reason.

How this list was produced, and what it is not

These are not regressions from recent work. They are the accumulated output of sustained adversarial review pointed at code that had never been measured. Of the items filed most recently, all but one were already true of main before the work that found them; they were simply not written down.

The one exception is noted in its own issue as a deliberate consequence, not a defect.

Review-round counts are falling as the review finds less: 17 rounds to clean approve, then 14, then 3.


P0 — release blockers

Nothing else blocks publishing.

P1 — correctness or safety on shipped code

P2 — real defects, bounded impact or unlikely trigger

P3 — hygiene, ergonomics, long tail

Design-first, not a release blocker


Three classes account for most of this list

Fixing them by class closes several issues each; fixing them one instance at a time is what makes the list look endless.

1. Absence read as fact. An error, an empty result, or a check that never ran is treated as a negative claim.
#103, #104, #111, #114, #115, #116 — and, historically, an unparseable workflow file that contributed no checks while reading as green.

hick-mio's has_addr_in already states the rule: "a failure is not an absence… has cost this crate twice before." The InterfaceLookup classifier now in hick-udp/src/multicast.rs is the shape to reuse — #103 and #104 are one PR, not two.

2. One fact, two spellings, no single home. The same truth stated in two places and kept in sync by care rather than by a compiler.
#98, #102, #109, #120, #123.

Every instance has cost review rounds. The precedent that works is extraction: the §11 rule copied into four drivers became one no_std crate, with the copies deleted rather than synchronised.

3. Found by reading, never by a test. Five driver divergences, and every per-family collapse.
#105 is the structural answer — a conformance harness driving all four drivers with identical inputs, asserting their decisions agree or that each disagreement is deliberate.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    trackingUmbrella issue tracking a set of others

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions